>> announcer: tonight, the epic showdown. >> not true. >> you'll get your chance in a moment. who will win. >> the president. >> people who are working hard every day. the challenger. >> can't afford four more years. >> it all comes down to this. one last time, face to face, it's "your voice, your vote." one on one, the final presidential debate. now reporting from abc news, election headquarters in new york, diane sawyer and george stephanopoulos. >> and good evening and welcome to the final showdown, debate number three and the test tonight, who will be the strongest leader on a global stage. president obama, governor romney, already backstage at this moment.

there are about 300 people in the audience there in boca raton, millions more watching from home and, george, every debate has changed the race. >> no question about it. round one, a big win f for governor romney. president obama, scored a more narrow victory last week and tonight our abc/"the washington post" poll, what happens tonight will set the stage. >> we want to take a look because in the audience already, mrs. romney, mrs. obama. both of whom said they get more nervous than the candidates at these debates. >> a lot of pressure also on tonight's moderator, bob schieffer of cbs news. the third time he's moderated a presidential debate. the focus on foreign affairs from lynn university in boca raton, florida. >> good evening from the campus of lynn university here in boca raton, florida. this is the fourth and last debate of the 2012 campaign brought to you by the commission on presidential debates. this one is on foreign policy.

i'm bob schieffer of cbs news. the questions are mine, and i have not shared them with the candidates or their aides. the audience has taken a vow of silence. no applause, no reaction of any kind except right now when we welcome president barack obama and governor mitt romney. [ applause ] >> good to see you again. [ cheers and applause ] >> gentlemen, your campaigns have agreed to certain rules and they are simple. they've asked me to divide the evening into segments, i'll pose a question at the beginning of each segment, you will each have

two minutes to respond and then we will have a general discussion until we move to the next segment. tonight's debate as both of you know comes on the 50th anniversary of the night that president kennedy tol the world that the soviet union had installed nuclear missiles in cuba, perhaps the closest we've ever come to nuclear war and it is a sobering reminder that every prident faces at some point an unexpected threat to our national security from abroad. so let's begin. the first segment is the challenge of a changing middle east and the new face of terrorism. i'm going to put this into two segments so you'll have two topic questions within this one segment on the subject. the first question and it concerns libya, the controversy over what happened there continues four americans dead including an american

ambassador, questions remain. what happened? what caused it? was it spontaneous? was it an intelligence failure? was it a policy failure? was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened? governor romney, you said this was an example of an american policy in the middle east that is unraveling before our very eyes. i'd like to hear each of you give your thoughts on that. governor romney, you won the toss, you go first. >> thank you, bob, and thank you for agreeing to moderate this debate this evening. thank you to lynn university for welcoming us here and mr. president, it's good to be with you again. we were together at a humanous event earlier and it's nice to maybe be funny this time not on purpose. we'll see what happens. this is obviously an area of great concern to the entire world and to america in particular, which is to see a complete change in the structure and the environment in the

middle east. with the arab spring came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation, an opportunity for greater participation on the part of women and public life and in economic life in the middle east, but instead we've seen in nation after nation a number of disturbing events. of course, we see in syria 30,000 civilians being killed by the military there. we see in libya an attack apparently by i think we now know by terrorists of some kind against our people there, four people dead, our hearts and minds go to them. mali has been taken over, the northern part by al qaeda-type individuals. we have in egypt a muslim brotherhood president and so what we're seeing can a pretty dramatic reversal and the kind of hopes we had for that region, of course, the greatest threat of all is iran, four years closer to a nuclear weapon, and we're going to have to recognize that we have to -- do as the

president has done,en congratulate him on taking out osama bin laden and going after the leadership in al qaeda but we can't kill our way out of the mess. we have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the world of islam and other parts of the world reject this radical violent extremism, which -- it's certainly not in the run, it's certainly not hiding. this is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries, and it presents an enormous threat 20 our friends, to the world, to america, long-term, and we must have a comprehensive strategy to help reject this kind of extremism. >> mr. president. >> well, my first job as commander in chief, bob, is to keep the american people safe, and that's what we've done over the last four years. we ended the war in iraq. refocused our attention on those who killed us on 9/11 and as a consequence al qaeda's core leadership has been decimatdeci.

we're able to transition out of afghanistan in a responsible way making sure that afghans take responsibility for their own security, and that allows us also to rebuild alliances and make friends around the world to combat future threats. now, with respect to libya, as i indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, i immediately made sure that, number one, we did everything we could to secure those americans who were still in harm's way. number two, that we would investigate exactly what happened, and, number three, most importantly, that we would go after those who killed americans and we would bring them to justice, and that's exactly what we're going to do but i think it's important to step back and think about what happened in libya. now, keep in mind that i and americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to without putting troops on the ground at the cost

of less than what we spent in two weeks in iraq liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years and got rid of a despot who killed americas and as a consequence this tragedy you had tens of thousands of libyans after the events in benghazi marching and saying, america is our friend. we stand with them. now, tha represents the opportunity we have to take advantage of, and, you know, governor romney, i'm glad that you agreed that we have been successful in going after al qaeda. but i have to tell you that, you know, your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map and is not designed to keep americans safe or to build on the opportunities that exist in the middle east. >> well, my strategy is pretty straightforward, which is to go after the bad guys, to make sure we do our very best to interrupt them, to kill them, to take them out of the picture, but my

strategy is broader than that. that's important, of course, but the key that we're going to have to pursue is a pathway to get the muslim world to be able to reject extremism on its own. we don't want another iraq. we don't want another afghanistan. that's not the right course for us. the right course for us is to make sure we go after the people who are leaders of these various anti-american groups and these jihadists but also help the muslim world. how do we do that? the arab scholars came together to see how we could help the world reject these terrorists and the answer they came up with this is, one more economic development. key our foreign aid, our direct foreign investment and that of our friends, we should coordinate it to make sure we push back and give them more economic development. number two, better education. number three, gender equality. number four, the rule of law. we have to help these nations create civil societies. but what's been happening over the last couple of years is as we watch this tumult in the

middle east, this rising tide of chaos occur, you see al qaeda rushing in. you see other jihadist groups rushing in and there throughout many nations in the middle east. it's wonderful that libya seems to be making some progress despite this terrible tragedy, but next door, of course, we have egypt, libya 6 million popution. egypt 80 million population. we want to make sure we see progress with mali having north mali taken over by al qaeda, with syria having assad continuing to assassinate or kill, murder his own people. this is a region in tumult and, of course, iran, on the path to a nuclear weapon. we've got real problems. >> but let's give the president a chance. >> governor romney, i'm glad that you recognize that al qaeda is a threat. because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing america, you said russia, not al qaeda. you said russia. the 1980s are calling for their foreign policy back because the cold war has been over for 20

years, but, governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the policies of the 1980s just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. you say that you're not interested in duplicating what happened in iraq, but just a few weeks ago, you said you think we should have more troops in iraq right now, and the challenge we have, i know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong. you said we should have gone into iraq despite the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction. you said that we should still have troops in iraq to this day. you indicated that we shouldn't be passing nuclear treaties with russia defespite the fact that senators, democrats and republicans, voted for it. you've said that first we should

not have a time line in afghanistan then you said we should. now you said maybe or it depends which means not only were you wrong but you're also confusing and sending messages to our troops and allies. so what we need to do with respect to the middle east is strong steady leadership, not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map and, unfortunately, that's the kind of opinions that you've offered throughout the campaign and it is not a recipe for american strength or keeping america safe -- >> i'm going to add a couple of minutes to give you a chance to respond. >> well, of course, i don't concur with what the president said about my own record and the things that i've said. they don't happen to be accurate, but i can say this, that we're talking about the middle east and how to help them reject the kind of terrorism we're seeing and the rising tide of tumult and confusion, and attacking me is not an agenda. attacking me is not talking about how we'll deal with the

challenges that exist in the middle east and take advantage much the opportunity there and stem the tide of this violence. but i'll respond to a couple of things you mentioned. first of all, russia, i indicated, is a geopolitical foe. >> number one -- >> excuse me, it's a geopolitical foe and i said in the same paragraph and i said iran is the greatest national security threat we face. russia does continue to battle us in the u.n. time and time again. i have clear eyes on this. i'm not going to wear rose colored glasses when it comes to russia or mr. putin and i won't say to him i'll give you more flexibility after the election. after the election he'll get more backbone. with regard to iraq you and i agreed there should have been a status of forces agreement. >> i didn't. >> you didn't? >> what i would not have done is let 10,000 troops in iraq that would tie us down, that certainly would not help us in the middle east. >> i'm sorry. you actually -- there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement and i concurred

in that and said we should have some number of troops that stayed on. that was something i concurred with -- >> governor romney -- >> that was my posture as well. you thought it should have been 5,000 troops. i thought it should have been more. the aegis is we got no troops what so jeff. >> a few weeks ago you indicated we should still have troops in iraq. >> no, i didn't. i indicated -- i indicated that you failed to put in place a status of forces agreement at the end of the conflict that existed. >> governor romney, here's one thing -- here's one thing i've learned as commander in chief. you've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies about where you stand and what you mean. now, you just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in iraq. that is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the middle east. now, it is absolutely true that we cannot just meet these challenges militarily and so what i've done throughout my presidency and will continue to

do is, number one, make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism efforts. number two, make sure that they are standing by our interests in israel security because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region. number three, we do have to make sure we're protecting religidge joust minorities and women because half the population is developing. number four, we do have to develop their economic -- their economic capabilities but, number five, the other thing we have to do is recognize that we can't continue to do nation-building in these regions, part of american leadership is making sure we're doing nation building here at home. that will help us maintain the kind of american leadership that we need. >> let me interject the second topic question in this segment about the middle east and so on and that is, you both mentioned -- eluded to this and this is syria. the war in syria has spilled

over into lebanon. we have, what, more than 100 people that were killed there in a bomb. there were demonstrations there, eight people dead. mr. president, it's been more than a year since you saw -- you told assad he had to go, since 30,000 syrians have died. we've had 300,000 refugees. the war goes on. he's still there. should we reassess our policy and see if we can find a better way to influence events there, or is that a possibility? you go first, sir. >> what we've done is organize the international community saying assad has to go, we've mobilized sanctions against that government, we have made sure that they are isolated. we have provided humanitarian assistance and we are helping the opposition organize and we're particularly interested in making sure we're mobilizing the moderate forces inside of syria. but ultimately, syrians will have to determine their own future and so everything we're

doing, we're doing in consultation with our partners in the region including israel which obviously has a huge interest in seeing what happens in syria. coordinating with turkey and other countries in the region that have a great interest in this. now, what we're seeing taking place in syria is heartbreaking and that's why we are going to do everything we can to make sure we are helping the opposition, but we also have to recognize that, you know, for us to get more entangled militarily in syria is a serious step and we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping, that we're not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or our allies in the region. and i am confident that assad's days are numbered. but what we can't do is to simply suggest that as governor romney at times has suggested that giving heavy weapons, for example, to the syrian opposition is a simple proposition that would lead us

to be safer over the long term. >> governor romney? >> well, let's step back and talk about what's happening in syria and how important it is. first of all, 30,000 people being killed by their government is a humanitarian disaster. secondly, syria is an opportunity for us because syria plays an important role in the middle east, particularly right now. syria is iran's only ally in the arab world. it's their route to the sea. it's the route for them to arm hezbollah in lebanon which threatens, of course, our ally israel, so seeing syria remove askad is a very high priority for us. number two, seeing a replacement government being responsible people is critical for us. and, finally, we don't want to have military involvement there. we don't want to get drawn into a military conflict so the right course for us can working through our partners and with our own resources to identify responsible parties within syria, organize them, bring them together in a form of -- if not government, a form of counsel that can take the lead in syria

and then make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves. we do need to make sure that they don't have airports that get into the wrong hands, those arms could be used to hurt us down the road. we need to make sure, as well, we coordinate this effort with our allies and particularly with israel. but the saudis and the qatari and the turks are all concerned about this. they're willing to work with us. we need to have a very effective leadership effort in syria, making sure that the insurgents there are armed and the insurgents that bebecome armed e people who will be the responsible parties. recognize i believe that assad must go. i believe he will go, but i believe we want to make sure that we have the relationships of friendship with the people to take his place such that in the years to come we see syria as a friend and syria as a responsible party in the middle east. this is a critical opportunity for america and what i'm afraid of, we've watched over the past year or so, first, the president

saying we'll let the u.n. deal with it and assad -- excuse me, kofi annan came in and said we'll try a cease-fire. that didn't work. then look to the russians and say, see if you can do something. we should be playing the leadership role there, not on the ground but military by the leadership role. >> we are playing a leadership role. we organized the friends and mobilizing humanitarian support and support for the opposition and we are making sure that those we help are those who will be friends of ours in the long term and friends of the allies. but going back to libya because this is an example of how we make choices. when we went into libya and were able to immediately stop the massacre there because of the unique circumstances and the coalition that we had helped to organize. we also had to make sure that moammar gadhafi didn't stay there and to the governor romney's credit you supported us going into libya and the coalition we organized.

but when it came time to making sure that gadhafi did not stay in power, that he was captured, governor, your suggestion was that this was mission creep, that this was mission muddle. imagine if we had pulled out at that point. moammar gadhafi had more blood on his hands other than osama bin laden so we were going to make sure we finished the job, part of the reason the libyans stand with us but we did so in a careful, thoughtful way making certain that we knew who we were dealing with, that those forces of moderation on the ground were ones that we could work with and we have to take the same kind of steady, thoughtful leadership when it comes to syria. that's exactly what we're doing. >> governor, can i ask you when you go beyond what the administration would do, like, for example, would you put in no-fly zones over syria jo. >> i don't want to have our military involved in syria.

i don't think it's a necessity to put our military in syria at this stage and i don't anticipate that in the future. as i indicated, our objectives are to replace assad and have in place a new government which is friendly to us, a responsible government, if possible and i want to make sure they get armed and they have the arms necessary to defend themselves but also to remove assad. but i do not want to see a military involvement on the part of our troops. and this isn't going to be necessary. we have with our partners in the region, we have sufficient resources to support those groups, but, look, this has been going on for years. this is a time -- this should have been a time for american leadership. we should have taken a leading role, not militarily but a leading role organizationally, governmentally to bring together the parties there, find sponge parties. as you hear from intelligence sources even today, the insurgents are highly disparate. they voonts come together or formed a unity group, a council

of some kind. that needs to help. america can help that happen and make sure they have the arms they need to carry out the important role which is getting rid of askad. >> a quick response because -- >> i'll be very quick. what you just heard governor romney say is he doesn't have different ideas. and that's because we're doing exactly what we should be doing to try to promote a moderate syrian leadership and an effective transition so that we get assad out. that's the kind of leadership we've shown and the kind we'll continue to show. >> may i ask you, you know, during the egyptian turmoil, there came a point when you said it was time for president mubarak to go. some in your administration thought perhaps we should have waited a while on that. do you have any regrets about that? >> no, i don't, because i think that america has to stand with democracy, the notion that we would have tanks run over those

young people who were in tahrir square, that is not the kind of american leadership that john f. kennedy talked about 50 years ago, but what i've also said is that now that you have a democratically elected government in egypt, that they have to make sure they take responsibility for protecting religious minorities and we have put significant pressure on them to make sure they're doing that. to recognize the rights of women. which is critical throughout the region. these countries can't develop if young women are not given the kind of education that they need. they have to abide by their treaty with israel. that is a red line for us. because not only is israel's security at stake but our security is at stake if that unravels. they have to make sure they're cooperating with us when it comes to counterterrorism and we will help them with respect to developing their own economy, because ultimately, what's going to make the egyptian revolution successful for the people of egypt but also for the world is

if those young people who gathered there are seeing opportunities. their aspirations are similar to young people here. they want jobs. they want to be able to make sure their kids are going to a good school. they want to make sure that they have a roof over their heads and that they have the prospects of a better life in the future, and so one of the things that we've been doing, for example, organizing entrepreneurship conferences with these egyptians to give them a sense of how they can start rebuilding their economy in a way that's noncorrupt, that's transparent, but what is also important for us to understand is that for america to be successful in this region, there are some things we'll have to do here at home, as well. you know, one of the challenges over the last decade is we've done experiments in nation-building in places like iraq and afghanistan, and we've neglected, for example, developing our own economy, our own energy sectors, our own education system and it's very hard for us to project

leadership around the world when we're not doing what we need to do here. >> governor romney, i want to hear your response to that, but i would just ask you, would you have stuck with mubarak? >> no, i believe as the president indicated and said at the time that i supported his action there. i felt that -- i wish we'd have had a better vision of the future. i wish that looking back at the beginning of the president's term and even further back than that we would have recognized that there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world and that we would have worked more aggressively with our friend and with other friends in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form of government such that it didn't explode in the way it did. but once it exploded, i felt the same as the president did, which is these freedom voices and the streets of egypt where the people were speaking about principles and president mubarak had done things which were unimaginable and the idea of him crushing his people is not something we could possibly support. let me step back and talk about

what i think our mission has to be in the middle east and even more broadly because our purpose is to make sure the world is more peaceful. we want a peaceful planet. we want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they'll have a bright and prosperous future and not be at war. that's our purpose and the mantel of leadership for promotes the principles of peace lies to america. it is an honor we have but for us to be able to promote those principles of peace requires us to be strong and that begins with the strong economy here at home and, unfortunately, the economy is not stronger. when the president of iraq, excuse me of iran, ahmadinejad says that our debt makes us not a great country, that's a frightening thing. former chief of staff -- chief of -- joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen said our debt is the biggest national security threat we face. we have weakened our economy. we have need a strong economy. we need to have, as well, a strong moraimo camacho. our military is second to none in the world. we're blessed with terrific soldiers and extraordinary

technology and intelligence. but the idea of a trillion dollars in cuts through sequestration, budget cuts to the military would change that. we need to have strong allies. our association and connection with our allies is essential to america's strength. we're the great nation that has allies, 42 allies and friends around the world. finally we have to stand by our principles. if we're strong in each of those things american influence will grow but unfortunately in nowhere in the world is america's influence greater today than it was four years ago. >> all right. >> that's because we've become weaker on each of those. >> you'll get a chance to respond to that because i took perfect segue into our next segment, and that is what is america's role in the world and that is the question, w what do each of you see as our role in the world and i believe governor romney, it's your turn to go first. >> well, i absolutely believe that america has a responsibility and the privilege of helping defend freedom and

promote the principles that make the world more peaceful and those principles include human rights, human dignity, free enterprise, freedom of expression, elections because when there are elections, people tend to vote for peace. they don't vote for war so we want to promote those principles around the world. we recognize there are places of conflict in the world. we want to end those conflicts to the extent humanly possible. but in order to be able to fulfill our role in the world, america must be strong. america must lead. and for that to happen we have to strengthen our economy here at home. you can't have 23 million people struggling to get a job. you can't have an economy that over the last three years keeps slowing down its growth rate. you can't have kids coming out of college, half of them can't find a job today or a job commensurate with their college degree. we have to get our economy going and our military, we've got to strengthen our military long term.

we don't foe what the world is going to throw at us down the road. we make decisions today in a military that will confront challenges we can't imagine in the 2000 debates, there was no mention of terrorism, for instance. and a year later 9/11 happened so we have to make decisions based upon uncertainty and that means a strong military. i will not cut our military budget. we have to also stand by our allies. i think the tension that existed between israel and the united states was very unfortunate. i think also that pulling our missile defense program out of poland and the way we did was also unfortunate in terms of if you will disrupting the relationship in some ways that existed between us and then, of course, with regards to standing for our principles, when the students took to the streets in tehran and the people there protested, the green revolution occurred. for the president to be silent i thought was an enormous mistake. we have to stand for our principles. stand for our allies, stand for a strong military and stand for a stronger economy.

>> mr. president. >> america remains the one indispensable nation, and the word needs a strong america and it is stronger now than when i came into office. because we ended the war in iraq, we were able to refocus our attention on not only the terrorist threat but also beginning a transition process in afghanistan. it also allowed us to refocus on alliances, relationships that had been neglected for a decade and governor romney our alliances have never been stronger. in asia, in europe, in africa. with israel where we have unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation including dealing with the iranian threat. but what we also have been able to do is position ourselves so we can start rebuilding america and that's what my plan does. making sure that we're bringing manufacturing back to our shores so that we're creating jobs here, as we've done with the

auto industry, not rewarding companies shipping them overseas and making sure weaver the best education system in the world including retraining our workers for the jobs of tomorrow, doing everything we can to control our own energy. we've cut all oil imports to the lowest level in two decades because we've developed oil and natural gas but we also have to develop clean energy technologies that will allow us to cut our exports in half by 2020. that's the kind of leadership we need to show and we've got to make sure we reduce our deficit, unfortunately, governor romney's plan doesn't do it. we've got to do it if a responsible way, by cutting out spending we don't need but also asking the wealthiest to pay a little bit more, that way we can invest in the research and technology that's always kept us at the cutting edge. now, governor romney has taken a different approach throughout this campaign. now, both at home and abroad he has proposed wrong and reckless policies. now he's praised george bush as

a good economic steward and dick cheney as somebody who shows great wisdom and judgment and taking us back to those kind of strategies that got us into this mess are not the way that we are going to maintain leadership in the 21st century. >> governor romney, wrong and reckless policies? >> i've got a policy for the future and an agenda for the future and when it comes to our economy here at home, i know what it takes to create 12 million new jobs and rising take-home pay and what we've seen over the last four years is something i don't want to see over the next four years. the president said we'd be at 5.4% unemployment. we're 9 million short of that. i will get america working again and see take-home pay rising and we will have north american energy independence and do it by taking full advantage of oil, coal, gas and renewables. number two, we'll increase our trade. trade gross 12% per year and doubles about every five or so

years. we can do better than that, particularly in latin america. the opportunities for us in latin america, we have just not taken advantage of fully. as a matter of fact, latin america's economy is almost as big as the economy of china. we're all focused on china. latin america is a huge opportunity for us. time zone, language opportunities, number three, we're going to have to have training programs that work for our workers and schools that finally put the parents and the teachers and the kids first and the teachers unions will have to go behind and then we're going to have to get to a balanced budget. we can't expect entrepreneurs and businesses large and small to take their life savings or their company's money and invest in america if they think we're headed to the road to greece and that's where we're going right now unless we finally get off this spending and borrowing binge and i'll get us on track to a balanced budget and finally, number five, we've got to champion small business. small businesses where jobs come from, two-thirds of our jobs come from small businesses, new

business formation is down to the lowest level in 30 years under this administration. i want to bring it back and get back good jobs and rising take-home pay. >> let's talk about what we need to compete. first of all, governor romney talks about small businesses, but, governor, when you were in massachusetts, small businesses development ranked about 48th i think out of 50 states in massachusetts. because the 3089ss that you're promoting don't help small businesses and the way you define small businesses includes folks at the very top and they include you and me. that's not the kind of small business promotion we need but let's take an example that we know is going to make a difference in the 21st century. that's our education policy. we didn't have a lot of chances to talk about it in the last debate. under my leadership what we have weigh done is reformed education working with governors, 46 states and have seen progress and gains in schools that were having a terrible time and they're starting to finally make progress, and what i now want to

do is hire more teachers, especially in math and science because we know that we've fallen behind when it comes to math and science and those teachers can make a difference. now, governor romney, when you were asked by teachers whether or not this would help the economy grow, you said this isn't going to help the economy grow. when you were asked about reduced class sizes, you said class sizes don't make a difference but i tell you if you talk to teachers, they will tell you it does make a difference and if we've got math teachers who are able to provide the kind of support that they need for our kids, that's what's going to determine whether or not the new businesses are created here, companies are going to locate here, depending on whether we have the most highly skilled workforce and the kinds of budget proposals you've put forward when we don't ask either you or me to pay a dime more in terms of reducing the deficit but instead slash support for education, that's undermining our long-term competitiveness. that is not good for america's position in the world and the

world notices. >> let me get back to foreign policy. can i just get back -- >> i need to speak a moment. bob, just about education because -- >> okay. >> i'm so proud of the state that i had the chance to be governor of, we have every two years, tests that look at how well our kids are doing. fourth graders and eighth graders are tested in english and math. while i was governor i was proud our fourth graders came out number one in all 50 states in english and math and our eighth graders number one in english and math, first time one state had been number one in all four measures. how did we do that? well, republicans and democrats came together on a bipartisan basis to put in place education principles that focused on having great teachers in the classroom. >> ten years earlier -- >> that's where tit allowed us o become -- >> that was two years before you took office and then you cut education when you came into office. >> and we kept our schools number one in the nation and they're still number one today and the pririnciples we put in

place gave kids not just a graduation exam to determine whether they were up to the skills needed to be able to compete but also if they graduated in the top quarter of their class, they got a four-year tuition-free ride at any massachusetts public institution of higher -- >> that happened before you came to office. >> that was actually mine. your fact is wrong. >> i want to shift it because we have heard some of this in the other debate. governor, you say you want a bigger military. you want a bigger navy. you don't want to cut defense spending. what i want to ask you, we're talking about financial problems in this country. where are you going to get the money? >> well, let's come back and talk about the military but all the way true, first of all i'm going through from the beginning we'll cut 5% of the discretionary budget excluding military. that's number one. >> this is without driving -- >> the good news is i'll be happy to have you look. come on our website and look at how we get to a balanced budget within eight to ten years. we do it by getting -- by

reducing spending in a whole series of programs. number one i get rid of is obama care. there are a number of things that sound good but frankly we can't afford them and that one doesn't sound good and it's not affordable so i get rid of that from day one to the extent humanly possible we take that out and take program after program that we don't absolutely have to have and we get rid of them. number two, we take some programs that we are going to keep like medicaid which is a program for the poor, we'll take that health care program for the poor and we give it to the states to run because states run these programs more efficiently. as a governor i thought, please, give me this program. >> can you -- >> i can run it more efficiently by the federal government and states are proving it like arizona, rhode island have taken these medicaid dollars and have shown they can run the programs more cost effectively. >> bob -- >> i want to do those two things that gets us to a balanced budget within eight to ten years but the military -- >> bob -- >> let's go back to the

military. >> that's what i'm trying to -- you should have answered the first question, look, governor romney's called for $5 trillion of tax cuts he says he'll pay for by closing deductions. now, the math doesn't work, but he continues to claim that he's going to do it. he then wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military's not asking for. now, keep in mind that our military spending has gone up every single year that i've been in office. we've spent more on our military than the next ten countries combined. china, russia, france, the united kingdom, you name it, next, what i did was work with our joint chiefs of staff to think about what are we going to need in the future to make sure that we are safe. and that's the budget that we've put forward. but what you can't do is spend $2 trillion inational military

spending that the military is not asking for, $5 trillion on tax cuts, you say that you're going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions without naming what those loopholes and deductions are, and then somehow you're also going to deal with the deficit that we've already got, the math simply doesn't work. but when it comes to our military, what we have to think about is not, you know, just budgets, we've got to think about capabilities. we need to be thinking about cybersecurity, we need to be thinking about space. that's exactly what our budget does, but it's driven by strategy. it's not driven by politics, it's not driven by members of congress and what they would like to see. it's driven by what are we going to need to keep the american people safe. that's exactly what our budget does and it also then allows us to reduce our deficit, which is a significant national security concern, because we've got to make sure that our economy is strong at home so that we can

project military power overseas. >> bob, i'm pleased our balanced budget -- i was in the world of business for 25 years. you didn't balance your budget you went out of business. i went to the olympics that was out of balance and got it on balance and was a success there. governor of the state and we balanced the budget and cut taxes 19 times and balanced our budget. the president hasn't balanced a budget yet. i expect to have the opportunity to do so myself. i'll be able to balance the budget. military spending, that's this -- >> second. >> our navy is older -- excuse me our navy is smaller now than any time since 1917 much. the navy said they needed 313 ships. we're now at 285. we're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. that's unacceptable to me. i want to make sure we have the ships that are required by our navy. our air force is older and smaller than any time since it was founded in 1947. we've changed for the first time

since fdr, since fdr, we've always had the strategy to say we could fight in two conflicts at once. now we're changing to one conflict. look, this in my view is the highest responsibility of the president of the united states, which is to maintain the safety of the american people and i will not cut our military budget by a trillion dollars which is a combination of the budget cut the president has as well as a sequestration cut. that in my view is making our future less certain and less secure. >> bob, i would like to comment on this. first of all, that's not something i propose but congress has proposed. it will not happen. the budget we're talking about is not reducing our military spending, it's maintaining it. but i think governor romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. you mentioned the navy, for example. and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. well, governor, we have fewer horses and baiyonets because th military changed.

we have aircraft carriers where planes land on them. we have the ships that go underwater. nuclear submarines and so the question is not a game of battleship where we're counting ships, it's what are our capabilities so when i sit down with the secretary of the navy and the joint chiefs of staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops and also making sure our veterans have the support they need when they come home and that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you're putting forward because it just doesn't work. >> all right. >> and, you know, we visited the website quite a bit and it still doesn't work. >> a lot to cover. i'd like to move to the next segment, red lines, israel and iran. would either of you and you'll have two minutes, and president obama, you have the first go at this one, would either of you be

willing to declare an attack on israel is an attack on the united states? which, of course, is the same promise that we gave to our close allies like japan. and if you made such a declaration, would not that deter iran, it's certainly deterred the soviet union for a long, long time when we made that -- we made that promise to our allies. mr. president. >> well, first of all, israel is a true friend. it is our greatest ally in the region, and if israel is attacked, america will stand with israel. i've made that clear throughout my presidency. >> so you're saying -- you've already made that declaration. >> i will stand with israel if they are attacked and this is the reason why, working with israel, we have created the strongest military and intelligence cooperation between our two countries in history. in fact, this week we'll be carrying out the largest military exercise with israel in history. this very week.

but to the issue of iran, now, as long as i'm president of the united states, iran will not get a nuclear weapon. i've made that clear when i came into office. we then organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against iran in history and it is crippling their economy. their currency has dropped 80%. their oil production has plunged to the lowest level since they were fighting a war with iraq 20 years ago. their economy is in a shambles and the reason we did this is because a nuclear iran is a threat to our national security and it's a threat to israel's national security. but we cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world. iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and for them to be able to provide nuclear technology to nonstate actors, that's unacceptable and they have said that they want to see israel wiped off the map. so the work that we've done with

respect to sanctions now offers iran a choice. they can take the diplomatic route and end their nuclear program or they will have to face a united world and a united states president, me, who said we're not going to take any options off the table. the disagreement i have with governor romney is that during the course of the campaign he's often talked as if we should take premature military action. i think that would be a mistake because when i've sent young men and women into harm's way i always understand that is the last resort, not the first resort. >> two minutes. >> well, first of all, i want to underscore the same point the president made which is that if i'm president of the united states, when i'm president of the united states, we will stand with israel. and if israel is attacked, we have their back. not just diplomatically, not just culturally but militarily, that's number one. number two, with regards to iran and the threat of iran, there's

no question but the nuclear iran and nuclear capable iran is unacceptable to america. it presents a threat not only to our friends but ultimately a threat to us to have iran have nuclear material, nuclear weapons that could be used against us or used to be threatening to us. it's also essential for us to understand what our mission is in iran, that is, to dissuade iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful and diplomatic means. and crippling sanctions are something i called for five years ago when i was in israel speaking at the conference i laid out seven steps, crippling sanctions were number one and they do work. you're seeing it right now in the economy, absolutely the right thing to do to have crippling sanctions and i'd have put them in place earlier but it's good we have them. number two, something i would add today i would tighten those sanctions. i would say that ships that carry iranian oil can't come into our ports. i mentioned the eu would agree with us as well, not only ships couldn't but companies moving their oil can't, people trading their oil can't. i would tighten those sanctions

further. secondly, i'd take on diplomatic isolation efforts. i'd make sure that ahmadinejad is indicted under the genocide convention, his words amount to genocide in citation. i would indict him for it. i would also make sure their diplomats are treated like the pariah they are around the world. the same way we treated the apartheid diplomats of south africa. we need to increase pressure time and time again on iran because anything other than a solution of this, which says -- which stops this nuclear folly of theirs is unacceptable to america. and, of course, a military action is the last resort. it is something one would only, only consider if all of the other avenues had been tried to their full extent. >> let me ask both of you, as you know, there are reports that iran and the united states is part of an international group have agreed in principle to talks about iran's nuclear

program. what if the deal, if there are such talks, what is the deal that you would accept, mr. president? >> well, first of all, those are reports in the newspaper. they are not true, but our goal is to get iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the u.n. resolutions that have been in place because they had the opportunity to re-enter the community of nations, and we would welcome them. there are people in iran who have the same as pier rations as people all around the world for a better life, and we hope that their leadership takes the right decision, but the deal we'll accept is they end their nuclear program. it's very straightforward and i'm glad that governor romney agrees with the steps that we're taking. there have been times, governor, frankly, during the course of this campaign where it sounded like you thought that you'd do the same things we did but you'd

say them louder and somehow that would make a difference and it turns out that the work involved in setting up these crippling sanctions is painstaking. it's meticulous. we started from the day we got into office and the reason it was so important and this is a testament to how we've restored american credibility and strength around the world is we had to make sure that all the countries participated, even countries like russia and china. because if it's just us imposing sanctions we've had sanctions in place for a long time. it's because we got everybody to agree that iran is seeing so much pressure and we have to maintain that pressure. there is a deal to be had and that is that they abide by the rules that have already been established. they convince the international community they are not pursuing a nuclear program, there are inspections that have very intrusive, but over time, what they can do is regain credibility. in the meantime, though, we're

not going to let up the pressure until we have clear evidence that takes place and one last thing, just to make this point, the clock is ticking. now, we're not going to allow iran to perpetually engage in negotiations that lead nowhere and i've been very clear to them. you know, because of the intelligence coordination we do with a range of countries including israel, we have a sense of when they would get breakout capacity, which means that we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program and that clock is ticking and we're going to make sure that if they do not meet the demands of the international community, then we are going to take all options necessary to make sure they don't have a nuclear weapon. >> governor? >> i think from the very beginning one of the challenges we've had with iran is that they have looked at this administration and felt that the administration was not as strong as it needed to be. i think they saw weakness where they had expected to find american strength, and i say that because from the very

beginning the president and his campaign some four years ago said he'd meet with the world's worst actors in his first year and sit down with chavez and kim jong-il, with castro and with president ahmadinejad of iran. and i think they looked and thought, well, that's the unusual honor to receive from the president of the united states and then the president began what i called an apology tour of going to various nations in the middle east and criticizing america. i think they looked at that and saw weakness then when there were dissidents in the streets of tehran, a green revolution, holding signs saying is america with us, the president was silent. i think they noticed that, as well. and i think that when the president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and israel, that they noticed that, as well. all of these things suggested, i think, to the iranian mullahs that, hey, we can keep pushing along here and keep talks going on, we'll keep spending centrifuges. now there are some 10,000

centrifuges spinning uranium preparing to create a nuclear threat to the united states and to the world. that's unacceptable for us and it's essential for a president to show strength from the very beginning to make it very clear what is acceptable and not acceptable and an iranian nuclear program is not acceptable to us. they must not develop nuclear capability. and the way to make sure they understand that is by having from the very beginning the tightest sanctions possible. they need to be tightened. our diplomatic isolation needs to be tougher. we need to indict ahmadinejad and put the pressure on them as hard as we possibly can. because if we do that, we won't have to take the military action. >> bob, let me just respond. nothing governor romney just said is true. starting with this notion of me apologizing. this has been probably the biggest whopper that's been told during the course of this campaign and every fact checker and reporter looked at it, the governor has said this is not

true. and when it comes to tightening sanctions, look, as i said before, we've put in the toughest most crippling sanctions ever, and the fact is while we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a chinese state oil company that was doing business with the iranian oil sector, so i'll let the american people decide, judge who is going to be more effective and more credible when it comes to imposing crippling sanctions. and with respect to our attitude about the iranian revolution, i was very clear about the murderous activities that had taken place and that was contrary to international law and everything that civilized people stand for, and so the strength that we have shown in iran is shown by the fact that we've been able to mobilize the world. when i came into office, the world was divided. iran was resurgent.

iran is at its weakest point economically, strategically, militarily than in many years and we are going to continue to keep the pressure on to make sure that they do not get a nuclear weapon. that's in america's national interest and that will be the case so long as i'm president. >> we're four years closer to a nuclear iran. we're four years closer to a nuclear iran. and we should not have wasted these four years to the extent they've continued to be able t spin tse centrifuges and get that much closer. that's number one, number two, mr. president the reason i called it an apology tour is because you went to the middle east and flew to egypt and to saudi arabia and to turkey and iraq, and by the way, you skipped israel. our closest friend in the region. but you went to the other nations and, by the way, they noticed you skipped israel and then in those nations and an arabic tv you said america had been dismissive and derisive and had dictated to another nations.

mr. president, america has not dictated to other nations. we have freed other nations from dictators. >> bob, let me respond. you know, if we're going to talk about trips that we've taken, when i was a candidate for office, first trip i took was to visit our troops, and when i went to israel as a candidate, i didn't take donors, i didn't attend fund-raisers, i went there, the holocaust museum there to remind myself the nature of evil and why our bond with israel will be unbreakable and then i went down to the border towns, which had experienced missiles raining down from hamas and i saw families there who showed me where missiles had come down near their children's bedrooms and i was reminded of what that would mean if those were my kids, which is why as president

we funded an iron dome program to stop those missiles. so that's how i used my travels when i traveled to israel and when i traveled to the region and the central question at this point is going to be who is going to be credible to all parties involved and they can look at my track record, whether it's iran sangs, whether it's dealing with counterterrorism, whether it's supporting democracy, whether it's supporting women's rights, whether it's supporting religious minorities and they can say that the president of the united states and the united states of america has stood on the right side of history and that kind of credibility is precisely why we've been able to show leadership on a wide range of issues facing the world right now. >> what if, what if the prime minister of israel called you on the phone and said, our bombers are on the way, we're going to

bomb iran? what do you say? >> bob, let's not go into hypotheticals of that nature. our relationship with israel, my relationship with the prime minister of israel is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way or their fighters are on the way. this is the kind of thing that would have been discussed and thoroughly evaluated well before that kind of talk -- >> so you say it just wouldn't happen. >> okay, but let's see what -- let me come back to -- let's go back to what the president was speaking about. >> which is what's happening in the world and the president's statement that things are going so well, look, i look at what's happening around the world and i see iran four years closer to a bomb. i see the middle east with a rising tide of violence, chaos, tumult. i see jihadists continuing to spread, whether they're rising or just about the same level, hard to precisely measurely but it's clear they're there, they're very strong and see syria with 30,000 civilians dead.

assad still in power. i see our trade deficit with china larger than it's -- growing larger every year, as a matter of fact and i look around the world and i don't feel that you see north korea continuing to export their nuclear technology, russia said they won't follow it anymore. back away from a nuclear proliferation treaty that we had with them. i look around the world, i don't see our influence growing around the world. i see our influence receding in part because of the failure of the president to deal with our economic challenges at home, in part because of our withdrawal from our commitment to our military and the way i think it ought to be. if part because of the turmoil with israel. i mean the president received a letter from 38 democrat senators saying the tensions with israel are a real problem. they asked him, please, repair the tension. democrat senators, please repair -- on the party. >> governor, the problem is is that on a whole range of issues,

whether it's the middle east, whether it's afghanistan, whether it's iraq, whether it's now iran, you've been all over the map. i mean i'm pleased that you now are endorsing our policy of applying diplomatic pressure and potentially having bilateral discussions with the iranians to end their nuclear program, but just a few years ago, you said that's something you'd never do. in the same way that you initially opposed a timetable in afghanistan. now you're for it, although it depends. in the same way that you say you would have ended the war in iraq, but recently gave a speech saying that we should have 20,000 more folks in there. the same way that you said that it was mission creep to go after gadhafi, when it comes to going after osama bin laden, you said, well, any president would make

that call. but when you were a candidate in 2008 as i was and i said if i got bin laden in our sights, i would take that shot, you said, we shouldn't move heaven and earth to get one man, you said we should ask pakistan for permission and if we had asked pakistan for permission we would not have gotten it and it was worth moving heaven and earth to get him. after we killed bin laden, i was at ground zero for a memorial and talked to a young woman who was four years old when 9/11 happened and the last conversation she had with her father was him calling from the twin towers saying, peyton, i love you and i will always watch over you and for the next decade she was haunted by that conversation and she said to me, you know, by finally getting bin laden, that brought some closure to me, and when we do things like that, when we bring those

who have harmed us to justice, that sends a message to the world and it tells peyton that we did not forget her father and i make that point because that's the kind of clarity of leadership and those decisions are not always popular, those decisions general generally are not poll-tested and even some in my own party including my current vice president had the same critique as you did but what the american people understand is that i look at what we need to get done to keep the american people safe and to move our interests forward and i make those decisions. >> all right. let's go and that leads us -- this takes us right to the next segment, governor. america's longest war, afghanistan and pakistan. >> bob -- >> governor -- >> you can't have the president lay out a whole series without giving me a chance -- >> with respect, sir, you had laid out quite a program. >> that's probably true. >> we'll give you -- we'll catch up. the united states is scheduled

to turn over responsibility for security in afghanistan to the afghan government in 2014, at that point we will withdraw our combat troops, leave a smaller force of americans, if i understand our policy in afghanistan for training purposes. it seems to me the key question here is, what do you do if the deadline arrives and it is obvious the afghans are unable to handle their security? do we still leave and i believe governor romney, you go first. >> well, we're going to be finished by 2014 and when i'm president, we'll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014. the commanders and the generals there are on track to do so. we've seen progress over the past several years. the surge has been successful, and the training program is proceeding at pace. there are now a large number of afghan security forces, 350,000 that are ready to step in to provide security and we're going

to be able to make that transition by the end of 2014. so our troops will come home at that point. i can tell you at the same time that we will make sure that we look at what's happening in pakistan and recognize that what's happening in pakistan will have a major impact on the success in afghanistan. and i say that because i know a lot of people just feel like we should just brush our hands and walk away and i don't mean you, mr. president, but some people in our nation feel that pakistan is being nice to us and we should just walk away from them but pakistan is important to the region, to the world and us because pakistan has 100 nuclear warheads andnd they're rushing build more. they'll have more than great britain sometime in the relatively near future. they also have the network and the taliban existent within their country and so a pakistan that falls apart, becomes a failed state would be of extraordinary danger to afghanistan and to us and so

we're going to have to remain helpful in encouraging pakistan to move towards a more stable government and rebuild a relationship with us and that means that our aid that we provide to pakistan is going to have to be conditioned upon certain benchmarks being met. so for me i look at this as both a need to help move pakistan in the right direction and also to get afghanistan to be ready and they will be ready by the end of 2014. >> mr. president. >> you know, when i came into office, we were still bogged down in iraq, and afghanistan had been drifting for a decade. we ended the war in iraq. refocused our attention on afghanistan, and we did deliver a surge of troops. that was facilitated in part because we ended the war in iraq, and we are now in a position where we have met many of the objectives that got us there in the first place. part of what had happened we had forgotten why we had gone. we went because there were

people who were responsible for 3,000 american deaths and so we decimated al qaeda's core leadership in the border regions between afghanistan and pakistan. we then started to build up afghan forces, and we're now in a position where we can transition out because there's no reason why americans should die when afghans are perfectly capable of defending their own country. now, that transition has to take place in a responsible fashion. we've been there a long time and we've got to make sure that we and our coalition partners are pulling out responsibly and giving afghans the capabilities they need, but what i think the american people recognize is after a decade of war, it's time to do some nation building here at home and what we can now do is free up some resources to, for example, put americans back to work especially our veterans. rebuilding our roads, our

bridges, our schools, making sure that, you know, our veterans are getting the care that they need when it comes to posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, making sure that the certifications that they need for group jobs of the future are in place. you know, i was having lunch with some -- a veteran in minnesota who had been a medic dealing with the most extreme circumstances when he came home and he wanted to become a nurse he had to start from scratch and what we have said is let's change those certifications. the first lady has done great work with an organization called joining forces putting our veterans back to work and as a consequence veterans, unemployment is now lowered than general population, it was higher when i came into office, so those are the kinds of things that we can now do because we're making that transition in afghanistan. >> all right. let me go to governor romney. because you talked about pakistan and what needs to be done there.

general allen, our commander in afghanistan says that americans continue to die at the hands of groups who are supported by pakistan, we know that pakistan has arrested the doctor who helped us catch osama bin laden. it's still provides safe haven for terrorists, yet, we continue to get pakistan billions of dollars. is it time for us to divorce pakistan? >> no, it's not time to divorce a nation on earth that has 100 nuclear weapons and is on the way to double that at some point. a nation that has a serious threat from terrorist groups within its nation as i indicated before, the taliban, haqqani network. it does not have a civilian leadership calling the shots, isi, it's probably the most powerful of the three branches there and the military and then you have the civilian

government. this is a nation which if it falls apart, if it becomes a failed state, their nuclear weapons there, you've got terrorists there who could grab their hands on those nuclear weapons. this is an important part of the world for us. pakistan is technically an ally and they're not acting very much like an ally right now but we have some work to do and i don't blame the administration for the fact that the relationship with pakistan is strained. we had to go into pakistan. we had to go in there to get osama bin laden. that was the right thing to do. and that upset them but there was obviously a great deal of anger before that but we'll have to work with the people in pakistan to try and help them move to a more responsible course than the one they're on and it's important for them and important for the nuclear weapons and for the success of afghanistan, because inside pakistan, you have a large group of pardon funds that pashtuns

and that's one of the reasons the afghan security forces have so much work to do to be able to fight against that but it's important for us to recognize that we can't just walk away from pakistan. but we do need to make sure as we send support for them that this is tied to them making progress on matters that would lead them to becoming a civil society. >> let me ask you, governor, because we know president obama's position on this. what is your position on the use of draughns? >> well, i believe that we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world, and it's widely reported that draughns are being used in draughn strikes and i support that entirely and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology and believe that we should continue to use it to continue to go after the people who represent a threat to this nation and to our friends. let me also note that as i said earlier, we're going to have to

do more than just going after leaders and killing bad guys. important as that is, we're also going to have to have a far more effective and comprehensive strategy to help move the world away from terror and islamic extremists. we haven't done that yet. we talk a lot about these things but you look at the record, you look at the record of the last four years and say, is iran closer to a bomb? yes. is the middle east in tumult? yes. is al qaeda on the run? on its heels? no. is -- are israel and the palestinians closer to reaching a peace agreement? no, they haven't had talks in two years. we have not seen the progress we need to have and i'm convinced that with strong leadership an an effort to build a strategy based upon helping these nations reject extremism we can see the kind of peace and prosperity the world demands. >> well, keep in mind, our strategy wasn't just going after bin laden. we've created partnerships throughout the region to deal with extremism.

in somalia, in yemen, in pakistan. and what we've also done is engage these governments in the kind of reforms that are actually going to make a difference in people's lives day to day. to make sure that their governments aren't corrupt, to make sure that they are treating women with the kind of respect and dignity that every nation that succeeds has shown. and to make sure that they've got a free market system that works, so across the board we are engaging them in building capacity in these countries and we have stood on the side of democracy. one thing i think americans should be proud of, when tunisians began to protest, this nation, me, my administration stood with them earlier than just about any other country. in egypt, we stood on the side of democracy. in libya, we stood on the side of the people. and as a consequence, there is

no doubt that attitudes about americans have changed. but there are always going to be elements in these countries that potentially threaten the united states and we want to shrink those groups and those networks, and we can do that, but we're always also going to have to maintain vigilance when it comes to terrorist activity. the truth is that al qaeda is much weaker than it was when i came into office and they don't have the same capacities to attack the u.s. homeland and our allies as they did four years ago. >> let's go to the next segment. because it's a very important one. it is the rise of china and future challenges for america. i want to just begin this by asking both of you and mr. president, you go first this time. what do you believe is the greatest future threat to the national security of this country? >> well, i think it will continue to be terrorist

networks, we have to remain vigilant as i just said. but with respect to china, china's both an adversary but also a potential partner in the international community if it's following the rules. so my attitude coming into office was that we are going to insist that china plays by the same rules as everybody else. and i know americans had seen jobs being shipped overseas, businesses and workers not getting a level playing field when it came to trade and that's the reason why i set up a trade task force to go after cheaters when it came to international trade. that's the reason why we have brought more cases against china for violating trade rules than the other -- the previous administration had done in two terms. and we've won just about every case that we filed. that has been decided, in fact, just recently steelworkers in

ohio and throughout the midwest, pennsylvania, are in a position now to sell steel to china because we won that case. we had a tire case in which they were flooding us with cheap domestic tires or cheap chinese tires and we put a stop to it and as a consequence saved jobs throughout america. i have to say that governor romney criticized me for being too tough in that tire case, said this wouldn't be good for american workers and that it would be protectionist. but i tell you, those workers don't feel that way. they feel as if they had finally administration that would take this issue seriously. over the long term, in order for us to compete with china, we've also got to make sure, though, that we're taking care of business here at home. if we don't have the best education system in the world, if we don't continue to put money into research and technology, that will allow us to create great businesses here in the united states, that's how we lose the competition and,

unfortunately, governor romney's budget and his proposals would not allow us to make those investments. >> all right. governor? >> first of all it's not government that makes business successful. it's not government investments that make businesses grow and hire people. let me also note that the greatest threat that the world faces, the greatest national security threat is a nuclear iran. let's talk about china. china has an interest that's very much like ours in one respect and that is they want a stable world. they don't want war. they don't want to see protectionism. they don't want to see the world break out into various forms of chaos because they have to goods and put people to work and they have about 20,000 -- 20 million people rather coming out of farms every year coming into the cities needing jobs. so they want the economy to work and the world to be free and open. and so we can be a partner with china. we don't have to be an adversary in any way, shape or form. we can work with them. we can collaborate with them if

they're willing to be responsible. now, they look at us and say, is it a good idea to be with america? how strong are we going to be? how strong is our economy? they look at the fact that we owe them a trillion dollars and owe other people 16 trillion in total including them. they look at our decision to cut back on our military capabilities, a trillion dollars, the secretary of defense called these trillion dollars of cuts to our military devastating. it's not my term. it's the president's own secretary of defense called them devastating. they look at america's commitments around the world and they see what's happening and they say, well, okay, is america going to be strong and the answer is yes, if i'm president america will be very strong. we'll also make sure that we have trade relations with china work for us. i've watched year in and year out as companies have shut down and people have lost their jobs because china has not played by the same rules. in part by holding down artificially the value of their currency, it holds down the

prices of their goods, it means our goods respect as competitive and we lose jobs. that's got to end. they're making some progress. they need to make more. that's why on day one i will label them a currency manipulator which allows us to apply tariffs where they're taking jobs and stealing our intellectual property, our patents, designs, our technology, hacking into our computers, counterfeiting our goods. they have to understand we want to trade with them, we want a world that's stable, we like free enterprise, but you got to play by the rules. >> well, governor, let me just ask you, if you declared them a currency manipulator on day one, some people are saying you're just going to start a trade war with china on day one. is that -- isn't there a risk that that could happen? >> well, they sell us about this much stuff every year and we sell them about this much stuff every year. so it's pretty clear who doesn't want a trade war and there's one going on right now which we don't know about. it's a silent one and they're winning.

we have enormous trade imbalance with china and it's worse this year than last year and worse last year than the year before and so we have to understand that we can't just surrender and lose jobs year in and year out, we have to say to our friends in china, look, you guys are playing aggressively, we understand it, but this can't keep on going. you can't keep on holding down the value of your currency, stealing our intellect walg property, counterfeiting our products, selling them around the world. even into the united states. as with one company that makes valves in process industries and they said, look, we're having valves coming in that were broken and we had to repair them under warranty and looked them up and they had our serial number on them then we noticed that there's more than one with that same serial number. there were counterfeit products being made overseas with the same serial number as a u.s. company, the same packaging. these were being sold into our market and around the world as if they were made by the u.s. competitor. this can't go on. i want a great relationship with

china. china can be our partner. but that doesn't mean they can just roll all over us and steal our jobs on an unfair basis. >> governor romney is right, you are familiar with jobs being shipped overseas because you invested in companies that were shipping jobs overseas. and, you know, that's your right. i mean that's how our free market works. but i've made a different bet on american workers. you know, if we had taken your advice, governor romney about our auto industry we'd be buying cars from china instead of selling cars to china. if we take your advice with respect to how we change our tax code so that companies that earn profits overseas don't pay u.s. taxes compared to companies here that are paying taxes, that's estimated to create 800,000 jobs, the problem is they won't be here, they'll be in places like china. and if we're not making investments in education and basic research, which is not something that the private sector is doing at a sufficient

pace right now and has never done then we will lose the lead in things like clean energy technology. now, with respect to what we've done with china already, u.s. exports have doubled since i came into office to china, and actually currencies are at their most advantageous point for u.s. exporters since 1993. we absolutely have to make more progress and that's why we're going to keep on pressing. and when it comes to our military and chinese security, part of the reason that we were able to pivot to the asia-pacific region after having ended the war in iraq and transitioning out of afghanistan is precisely because this is going to be a massive growth area in the future. and we believe china can be a partner but we're also sending a very clear signal that america is a pacific power that we are going to have a presence there, we are working with countries in

the region to make sure, for example, that ships can pass through, that commerce continues and we're organizing trade relations with countries other than china so that china starts to feeling more pressure about meeting basic international standards. that's the kind of leadership we've shown in the region. that's the kind of leadership we'll continue to show. >> i just want to take one of those points, again, attacking me is not talking about an agenda for getting more trade and opening up more jobs in this country. but the president mentioned the auto industry and that somehow i would be in favor of jobs being elsewhere. nothing could be further from the truth. i'm a son of detroit. i was born in detroit. my dad was head of a car company. i like american cars. and i would do nothing to hurt the u.s. auto industry. my plan to get the industry on its feet when it was in real trouble was not to start writing checks, it was president bush that wrote the first check, i disagreed with that and said these companies need to go

through a managed bankruptcy and in that process they can get government help and government guarantees but they need to go through a bankruptcy to get rid of excess cost and the debebt burden they built up and -- >> governor romney, that's not what you said. >> fortunately -- >> you can take a look. >> governor romney -- >> you can take a look -- >> you did not say -- >> i said we would provide guarantees and that's what was able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy to come out of bankruptcy under no circumstances would i do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet and the idea that has been suggested i would liquidate the industry, of course not. of course not. >> let's check the record. >> that's the height of silliness. >> let's check the record. >> i would liquidate the industry. governor, people in detroit don't forget >> that's why i have the kind of commitment to make sure that our industries in this country to compete and be successful, we in this country can compete successfully with anyone in the world and we're going to.

we're going to have to have a president, however, that doesn't think that somehow the government investing in car companies like tesla and making electric battery car, this is not research, mr. president, these are the government investing in companies, investing in solyndra. this is a company, this isn't basic research. i want to invest in research. research is great providing funding to universities and think tank, great, but investing in companies, absolutely not. >> governor -- >> that's the wrong way to go. i'm still speaking. i want to make sure we make america more competitive and that we do those things that make america the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, innovator, businesses to groeshgs but you're investing in companies doesn't do that. in fact, it makes it less likely for them to come here because the private sector is not going to invest in the solar company. >> i'm happy to respond to you. >> if you're investing -- >> have the floor for awhile. look, i think anybody out there can check the record.

governor romney, you keep on trying to, you know, air brush history here. you were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the u.s. auto companies even if they went through bankruptcy. you said that they could get it in the private marketplace. that wasn't true. they would have gone through a liquidation -- >> you're wrong. >> i am not wrong. people will look it up. but more importantly, it is true that in order for us to be competitive we're going to have to make some smart choices right now. cutting our education budget, that's not a smart choice. that will not help us compete with china. cutting our investments in research and technology, that's not a smart choice. that will not help us compete with china. bringing down our deficit by adding $7 trillion of tax cuts and military spending that our military is not asking for before we even get to the debt that we currently have, that is not going to make us more

competitive. those are the kinds of choices that the american people face right now. having a tax code that we wards companiesoverseas instead of the united states, that will not make us more competitive and the one thing that i'm absolutely clear about is that after a decade in which we saw drift, jobs being shipped overseas, nobody championing american workers and american businesses, we've now begun to make some real progress. what we can't do is go back to the same policies that got us into such difficulty in the first place. and that's why we have to move forward and not go back. >> i couldn't agree more about going forward but i certainly don't want to go back to the policies of the last four years. the policies of the last four years has seen incomes in america decline every year for middle income families. now down $4,300 during your term. 23 million americans still struggling to find a good job.

when you came to office, 32 million people on food stamps, today, 47 million people on food stamps. when you came to office, just over $10 trillion in debt. now $16 trillion in debt. it hasn't worked. you said by now we'd be at 5.4% unemployment. we're 9 million jobs short of that. i've met some of those people. i've met them in appleton, wisconsin, i pet a young woman in philadelphia who's coming out of college, can't find work. i've met -- ann was with someone the other day who was weeping about not being able to get work. it's just a tragedy in a nation so prosperous as ours that the last four years have been so hard. and that's why it's so critical that we make america once again the most attractive place in the world to start businesses, to build jobs, to grow the economy. and that's not going to happen by just hiring teachers. look, i love -- i love teachers and i'm happy to have states and communities that want to hire teachers do that. by the way, i don't like the

federal government start pushing its way deeper and deeper into our schools, let the states and localities do that. i was a governor. the federal government didn't hire our teachers. >> governor. >> but i love teachers but i want to get our private sector growing and i know how to do it. >> i think we all love teachers. gentlemen, thank you very much for a very vigorous debate. we've come to the end. time for a closing statement. i believe you're first, mr. president. >> thank you very much, bob, governor romney and to lynn university. you've now heard three debates, months of campaigning and way too many tv commercials. and now you've got a choice. you know, over the last four years we've made real progress digging our way out of policies that gave us two prolonged wars, record deficits and the worst economic crisis since the great depression. and governor romney wants to take us back to those policies. foreign policy that's wrong and reckless, economic policies that

won't create jobs, won't reduce our deficit, but will make sure that folks at the very top don't have to play by the same rules you do and i've got a different vision for america. i want to build on our strengths. and i put forward a plan to make sure we're bringing manufacturing jobs back to our shores, by rewarding companies and small businesses that are investing here, not overseas. i want to make sure we got the best educaon system in the world and we're retaining our workers for the jobs of tomorrow. i want to control our own energy by developing oil and natural gas but also the energy sources of the future. yes, i want to reduce our deficit by cutting spending that we don't need but also by asking the wealthy to do a little bit more. so that we can invest in things like research and technology that are the key to a 21st century economy. as commander in chief, i will maintain the strongest military in the world. keep faith with our troops and go after those who would do us

harm, but after a decade of war, i think we all recognize we got to do some nation building at home, rebuilding our roads and bridges and especially caring for our veterans who sacrificed so much for our freedom, and we've been through tough times, but we always bounce back because of our character. because we pull together and if i had the privilege of being your president for another four years, i promise you i will always listen to your voice, i will fight for your families, and i will work every single day to make sure that america continues to be the greatest nation on earth. thank you. >> governor. >> thank you, bob, mr. president, folks at lynn university, good to be with you. i'm optimistic about the future. i'm excited about our prospects as a nation. i want to see peace. i want to see growing peace in this country. it's our objective. we have an opportunity to have real leadership, america's going to have that kind of leadership and continue to promote principles of peace that will

make the world a safer place and make people in this country more confident that their future is secure. i also want to make sure we get this economy going and there are two very different paths the country can take. one is a path represented by the president which at the end of four years meaning we would have $20 trillion in debt heading towards greece. i'll get us on track to a balanced budget. the president's path will mean continuing declining and take-home pay. i want to make sure our take-home pay starts to grow. the president's path means 20 million people out of work struggling for a good job. i'll get people back to work with 12 million new jobs. i am going to make sure we get people off of food stamps, not by cutting the program but by getting them good jobs. america's going to come back and for that to happen we're going to have to have a president who can work across the aisle. i was in a state where my legislature was 87% democrat. i learned how to get along on the other side of the aisle. we're got to do that in washington. washington is broken.

i know what it takes to get this country back and we'll work with good democrats and good republicans to do that. this nation is the hope much the earth. we've been blessed by having a nation that's free and prosperous thanks to the contributions of the greatest generation. they've held a torch for the world to se the torch of freedom and hope and opportunity. now it's our turn to take that torch. i'm convinced woo's do it. we need strong leadership. i'd like to be that leader with your support. i'll work with you. i'll lead you in an open and honest way. i'd like your vote and be the next president of the united states to support and help this great nation and make sure we all together maintain america as the hope of the earth. thank you very much. >> governor romney, president, thank you very much. this brings an end to this year's debates and want to thank lynn university and its students for having us. as i always do at the end of these debates, i leave you with the words of my mom who said "go

vote. it makes you feel big and strong." >> that's great. >> good night. >> and they have bob schieffer concluding the third and final debate, the debates are over. two weeks to the day before americans finally go to the polls to cast their final vote for the president. it was a foreign policy debate. a few detours, george, into education and the economy along the way. we will watch the candidates there and watch their families come up on stage and greet them. and it feels to me the president came ready to be tough on governor romney talking about a commander in chief having to be clear, saying that governor romney had sent mixed messages all over the map and in response governor romney was attacking me is not an aagenda. >> very clear, diane, that president obama made a vow to himself three weeks ago he was not going to let that happen to him again. he was the aggressor last week and tonight from the very first question to governor romney and

then president obama, he wanted to paint a portrait of governor romney as an unfit leader who shifted his positions and policies of the past and foreign policy in the 1980s, social policy of the 1950s, economic policies of the 1920s. very different strategy from governor romney tonight. almost like a man who believed he came into this with a lead and momentum. hugging the president on many foreign policy issues, taking a path on the first question about libya decided not to attack again what both men wanted to do is pivot back to the economy. that is their core message. they each believe they can win on. >> i want to turn to matthew dowd because he said governor romney won in the second one. second one he said president obama had and their tiebreaker, matt dowd who advised presidential campaigns for two decades. >> well, three prize fights, their opponent as you said, the first one by mitt romney, won on points on the second by the president. the president won tonight.

here's why i think they both came in with different agendas but the president was more successful. i think the president saw this as a commander in chief's test who is more strong and decisive in this and i think it was clear he came through this debate much more strong, much more decisive and much more a commander in chief. mitt romney's goal was to come across as a much more moderate i'm not going to, you know, declare war on everybody in the world. you can trust me, you can see me as commander in chief in a much more sympathetic way, more diplomatic way interestingly enough. i think he did that well. but for the commander in chief strong leader which is where mitt romney gained in that first debate as george said where he won big in that, he actually lost that strong leader tonight to the president. my by points, i don't think it changes the race much, still a one or two-point race but he won. >> george will, did you agree what that. did governor romney have the wrong strategy? >> i don't think. the fact it occurred in the immediate aftermath of the death of george mcgovern underscores a

remarkable reversal in presidential politics for both parties. that is, 40 years ago tonight george mcgovern was running on the slogan, come home america. he then lost 49 states. 40 years on, come home america is probably pretty much the foreign policy of an american plurality and perhaps an american majority. as the president seemed to understand, as he repeatedly three times by my count said we have to get back to nation building here at home and when mitt romney was challenged to take a more assertive and engaged and interventionist policy with regard to, say, syria, in providing heavy weapons for the syrian resistance, he did not indicate that he would have that done by american troops and when it was -- challenged about having a no-fly zone he seemed to pull back from that. but it does seem to me in this debate, where 35 minutes in they were talking about medicaid reforms and arizona and rhode

island and class sizes all over america, they understand both of them that foreign policy is fairly peripheral to americans' interest today and what foreign policy they want means a lot less american involvement overseas. >> and nicolle wallace, she worked for sarah palin four years ago, president george w. bush as well, very clear to pick up on what george will is saying, governor romney reaching out to women voters who could make up the majority of the audience tonight. >> that's right and what was so interesting from the very beginning, this was a defense of the george w. bush freedom agenda by president obama and a loud and eager agreement from mitt romney. there went a debate on foreign policy. but the debate on the economy seemed to take president obama by surprise. once he caught on, by 10:15 he was groaning on about tires, the sure sign to me it was a win by the romney campaign is they pulled obama in to a debate about the economy which they feel like is their strong suit.

>> donna brazile, respond. >> first of all mitt romney couldn't talk about foreign policy because he hasn't been there and hasn't traveled enough to understand what's going on. i thought president obama was strong. he was clear. he knows the threats. he's dealt with the threats and what mitt romney did tonight was say, you know what, i agree with you, i agree with you on afghanistan. there's no difference, i agree with you on syria. there's no difference and even on iran, an area where mitt romney has talked about doing something more, tonight he said, i'll pretty much do what the president has done. >> jaing, you're in the spin room. i know the romney campaign were out in force first, but what are you hearing from the white house right now? >> reporter: the white house says that they feel very confident about the president's performance as you noted, george. they feel like mitt romney this evening was trying to hug the president when it came to embracing some of his positions, you did not hear a lot of difference in terms of what mitt romney would do differently with

regard to iran or syria or some of the other country, the campaign manager for the obama campaign, jim messina e-mailed me and said completely dominant. he thought president obama really was very aggressive, which has served him well. i do think it's important to note that mitt romney, of course, came into the night with a different agenda to talk about the economy, not necessarily foreign policy as much and probably scored some points there but generally speaking on the foreign policy debate, the obama campaign feels very, very good tonight. >> and hearing all the romney spin is david muir who covers the romney campaign. david? >> reporter: hey there, diane, another objective for mitt romney, try not to stand in the way of the momentum he's seen from the first debate. the romney campaign believes that he didn't do anything tonight that would get in the way of that momentum saying the governor conducted himself in ways that showed he was in command, he was thoughtful. they make the argument that the president looked like he was on the defensive tonight but if you tuned in tonigh distinctions on foreign policy when it came to syria, you heard governor

romney say i don't want military in syria, when it comes to iran he said military action should be a last resort so these are policies that sound an awful lot like one another and struck seconds into the debate we were hearing governor romney bring up osama bin laden first. we had a suspicion he would do that. an overture indicating that governor romney thought it was a decision well made in the administration. >> i want to go to our global affairs anchor christiane amanpour. you were checking throughout the evening. we heard from everybody else. seems like there wasn't a debate on many key foreign policy issues. is that what the experts heard as well. >> yes, as we've just enumerated on the big issues, syria, iran, afghanistan, libya, they barely even talked about there doesn't seem to be a huge difference. i think what's really interesting that bob schieffer tried to ask president obama what would the shape of the deal be if you had one-on-one talks with iran, the president just said, it's not going to happen. we're not having those talks. didn't even push mitt romney on whether they would do that and both fell in line.

mitt romney said, well, you know, i'd be tough on sanctions and i would indict president ahmadinejad for genocide incitement. i think a lot people out in the world -- by the way, son-in-law of these foreign leaders want to know what the united states might do about syria because i've spoken to many who say, if the u.s. led, we would be tougher in syria. you know, you can't go around saying assad stays in and then just let the slaughter continue so i think a no-fly zone is something many in the region thought would happen but even mitt romney said no. >> and turning next to our senior affairs correspondent, martha raddatz, martha, you were sitting at that very table, the same table moderated the vice president's debate. what did you see? >> i think what i didn't see was a foreign policy debate really. we turned so quickly to the economy and turned so quickly to domestic issues. the other thing that surprised me is i didn't hear the term for mitt romney's peace through strength a single time there. he was a different candidate in terms of the way he would have

approached foreign policy. one thing i did notice with president obama, not everybody looks at it like christiane and i do and going to policy things, president obama humanized what he was talking about. he talked a lot about the troops, he talked about the survivors from 9/11. he talked about the people in israel. so if, in fact, he was going towards the female vote, he probably got their attention with that sort of approach. >> and there were a lot of ball games going on. so we've been wondering out there how many people are watching, of course, we'll have all of that tally later. with we come back we'll check in with jonathan karl from abc news and ask what surprised him the most. we'll be back.

music is a universal language. but when i was in an accident... i was worried the health care system spoke a language all its own with unitedhealthcare, i got help that fit my life. information on my phone. connection to doctors who get where i'm from. and tools to estimate what my care may cost. so i never missed a beat. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. living with moderate to semeans living with pain.is it could also mean living with joint damage. help relieve the pain and stop the damage with humira, adalimumab. for many adults with moderate to severe ra,

humira is clinically proven to help relieve pain and stop joint damage. so you can treat more than just the pain. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal events, such as infections, lymphoma, or other types of cancer, have happened. blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure have occurred. before starting humira, your doctor should test you for tb. ask your doctor if you live in or have been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. tell your doctor if you have had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections or have symptoms such as fever, fatigue, cough, or sores. you should not start humira if you have any kind of infection. ask your rheumatologist about humira, to help relieve pain and stop further joint damage before they stop you. just begin with america's favorite soups. bring out chicken broccoli alfredo. or best-ever meatloaf. go to campbellskitchen.com for recipes, plus a valuable coupon.

campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do.

abc news live coverage of the final presidential debate. once again diane sawyer and george stephanopoulos. >> to jon karl. what what surprised you the most?

>> our goal is simply not to screw up so it didn't surprise me on one hand he embraced in many ways the obama foreign policy agenda and didn't pick big fights. what surprised me the degree to which mitt romney sounded like a peacenik. george mcgovern, there was a little george mcgovern coming out of him like we cannot kill our way out of this mess or said our goal is to make the world more peaceful. that was's very different tone from mitt romney than the mitt romney i covered during the primaries. >> and said we don't want another iraq or afghanistan. no military in syria and you're manning the fact check desk. any glaring misstatements by either candidate? >> well, there were a couple. one was when mitt romney repeated what he said before, that the president went on an apology tour when he became president. we looked at all those speeches. the president didn't apologize for america. he did acknowledge some mistakes that the united states had made but there's no way you could call it an apology tour and then there was one from the president when he said that mitt romney just a few weeks ago said he

wanted 20,000 troops back in iraq. that is not true in any way. back many months ago mitt romney said it was unfortunate that we didn't negotiate an agreement with the iraqis to have a follow-on force that could be 20,000 or so troops but he has not recently said that we should send 20,000 troops into iraq right now. that is not the romney position currently. >> i'm going to take a moment's pause for the twitter thon. big bird far and away trounced everything else in the first debate. tonight it was horses and bayonets running way when the president citing governor romney's observation about the navy in 1916 said, well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets than we did in 1916 although we are told the military does have some bayonets but to nicolle wallace. appeasement, governor romney, tonight? >> i think the romney campaign gets a kick out of this notion that somehow obama won on points. the romney campaign is nothing

else they are stoic, they are disciplined and they are insanely strategic. their strategy may not have been to kind of be the sitting commander in chief and his commander in chief, how could he possibly do that. their strategy was to talk to us all nine of the undecided voters left in ohio and to bring it right back to the economy and i don't know how anyone could argue he didn't win in that objective. >> donna, is matt right when he said the polling numbers -- >> you know, matt is absolutely right that this thing is so close right now that it's a ground game. both sides have to go after their base and try to shore them up and get them out to vote. but barack obama won tonight because he had a strategy to tell the country that this is a time to have a strong leader in the white house. >> but, math dowd, the romney strategy has been said all along if mitt romney crosses that threshold of being a credible commander in chief after the third debate you'll see what happens this year exactly what happened in 1980, a flood to him

at the end. all those undecided voters at the end. on the other hand there may not be many undecided voters out there. >> the race everybody should look at is not 1980 but 2004 because there's many more skim lates. in '80 there was one debate that finally got agreed to. president reagan was set to take the lead and showed he could be commander in chief and as soon as it was over the race was over. we've had three debates the time for that to happen was at the first debate when mitt romney won and won big. right now we're in a situation like 2004 where the race will be a one-point or two-point race all the way down with a true states ultimately going to decide the race and what you this is now can a little extra juice from the president tonight on that commander in chief test that i think is going to give their democratic base what they may need to turn out the votes they need to turn out. but a one-point race this is going to stay. >> george will, do you agree, it's not going to change the polling numbers much? >> i do. tonight we saw two men who don't really disagree all that much

talking about subjects concerning which the voters don't care all that much. i would sum this up as a nursery rhyme, the cow kicked nelly in the barn, didn't do her any good, didn't do her any harm. both were nellys. >> jake tapper, david muir, both were nellys and both campaigns will disagree with that. coming out of the debate what does each candidate's major goal over the next two weeks. jake, you start? >> well, their goal is to go to these undecided voters in these few states and make their picks. their economic pitch. the president has an unbelievably packed schedule. i am sorry tosay because i'll be with him for all of it. going from here in florida to ohio, iowa, colorado, nevada, back to florida, virginia, ohio again and basically you're going to see the president and i'm sure mitt romney, as well, focusing on the states, they're

going to start to fall away. for instances, i would be very surprised if we saw president obama go to north carolina more than once in the next two weeks. that seems to be a state that is falling into the romney pile. but you're going to see the keen focus eye of the president and his campaign go to where the votes are. right now they need to keep ohio in their camp and also hopefully for them in their view iowa or colorado and then they can hold on to an electoral victory. >> david, the focus of mitt romney? >> hey, george, that travel itinerary jake just mentioned sounds like mine. they're headed to the same states, neff ka, cole could, ohio later in the week and abc news poll numbers this came out today showing it's a tie race but when you look at the gender gap, george, you see these number, mitt romney leading among men in this country and president obama with a fairly hefty lead among women and so expect mitt romney in these swing states in the final two weeks to try to court those women, those swing voters who

could decide the race on election day. >> a note for everyone asking about the pink bracelet the president had on, yes, it was for breast cancer but i want to say to everyone in, please get george will's e-mail address when you write about the comments he's made tonight. write him directly, okay. i'm not distancing myself from you, george, i just want to make sure you get that e-mail. a quick thought what we'll talk about tomorrow. christiane? >> arab spring, i noticed a very different vision from both men. president obama thinking that this is an opportunity that the united states can work with and to have an historic once in a couple of lifetimes event in the islamic world. mitt romney saying this is very, very frightening and tumultuous. i think that's one thing americans do care about. >> i'm going to say that's the last you'll hear about foreign policy in this campaign. >> pretty safe. thank you both. we'll take a quick break and be right back. >> announcer: you're watching abc news live coverage of the >> announcer: you're watching abc news live coverage of the final presidential debate.♪

♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] at&t. the nation's largest 4g network. now covering 3000 more 4g cities and towns than verizon. at&t. rethink possible. now covering 3000 more 4g cities and towns than verizon.

why they have a raise your rate cd. tonight our guest, thomas sargent. nobel laureate in economics, and one of the most cited economists in the world. professor sargent, can you tell me what cd rates will be in two years? no. if he can't, no one can. that's why ally has a raise your rate cd. ally bank. your money needs an ally.

>> announcer: abc news live coverage of the final presidential debate. once again, diane sawyer and george stephanopoulos. >> and as we conclude the debates 2012 we thank you so much for joining us for all of them and we're hear at abcnews.com always and a full wrap-up of the special edition of "nightline" tonight. watch it. >> it's been a year where debates have made a difference starting with these primaries straight through tonight. i'll see you first thing tomorrow on "gma." good morning! wow.

want to start the day with something heart healthy and delicious? you're a talking bee... honey nut cheerios has whole grain oats that can help lower cholesterol. and it tastes good? sure does! right... ♪ wow. delicious, right? yeah. it's the honey, it makes it taste so... ♪